skip to main content
10.1145/3364510.3364513acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageskoli-callingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fifteen Years of Introductory Programming in Schools: A Global Overview of K-12 Initiatives

Published:21 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Computing education and outreach in the K--12 school sector have shown significant growth over recent decades, resulting in a large body of literature focused on the teaching and learning of computing. Despite this extensive literature, we are not aware of global overviews on teaching and learning programming as opposed to computing or computational thinking in K--12. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on introductory programming from 2003 to 2017. In this paper we review the papers that were set in the K--12 context with the aim of exploring developments that have been made in teaching introductory K--12 programming during this period. These include new programming languages, tools, teaching methods, and outreach programs. The impetus for these innovations was often a desire to provide interesting and engaging learning experiences and to ensure an appropriate level of instruction for a particular age group. Many initiatives were driven by changes to national curricula to mandate the teaching of programming. We find that there is a need for long-term studies to identify the most effective pedagogical approaches. We also identify a major need faced by many countries for training and resources to support teachers through the curriculum changes.

References

  1. Charoula Angeli, Joke Voogt, Andrew Fluck, Mary Webb, Margaret Cox, Joyce Malyn-Smith, and Jason Zagami. 2016. A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 19, 3 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Anon. 20nn. Omitted for blind review.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Curriculum. 2019. Australian Curriculum - Digital Technologies. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/digital-technologies/aims/. (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. F.B.V. Benitti. 2012. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education 58, 3 (2012), 978--988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Jens Bennedsen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2007. Failure Rates in Introductory Programming. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 2 (June 2007), 32--36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1272848.1272879Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Marina Umaschi Bers, Louise Flannery, Elizabeth R Kazakoff, and Amanda Sullivan. 2014. Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education 72 (2014), 145--157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. J. Blonskis and V. Dagienė. 2006. Evolution of Informatics Maturity Exams and Challenge for Learning Programming. In Informatics Education -- The Bridge between Using and Understanding Computers. 220--229.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Torsten Brinda. 2006. Discovery learning of object-oriented modelling with exploration modules in secondary Informatics education. Education and Information Technologies 11, 2 (apr 2006), 105--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Royal Society (Great Britain). 2012. Shut down or restart?: The way forward for computing in UK schools. Royal Society.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Brodnik, M. Lokar, and N. Mori. 2017. Activation of Computer Science Teachers in Slovenia. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. 658--662.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Neil C.C. Brown, S. Sentance, T. Crick, and S. Humphreys. 2014. Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 14, 2 (2014), 9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. National Research Council et al. 2010. Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking. In Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking, Natl Academy Pr.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. Gal-Ezer and C. Stephenson. 2014. A tale of two countries: Successes and challenges in K-12 computer science education in Israel and the United States. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 14, 2 (2014), 8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. V. Garneli, M. N. Giannakos, and K. Chorianopoulos. 2015. Computing Education in K-12 Schools: A review of the Literature. In 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 543--551.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Shuchi Grover and Roy Pea. 2013. Computational thinking in K--12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher 42, 1 (2013), 38--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Shuchi Grover and Roy Pea. 2013. Using a Discourse-intensive Pedagogy and Android's App Inventor for Introducing Computational Concepts to Middle School Students. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 723--728.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. K. J. Harms, E. Balzuweit, J. Chen, and C. Kelleher. 2016. Learning programming from tutorials and code puzzles: Children's perceptions of value. In 2016 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 59--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. K. J. Harms, D. Cosgrove, S. Gray, and C. Kelleher. 2013. Automatically Generating Tutorials to Enable Middle School Children to Learn Programming Independently. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 11--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. K. Hayat, N. Ali Al-Shukaili, and K. Sultan. 2016. Alice in Oman. Education and Information Technologies 22, 4 (2016), 1553--1569.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. F. Heintz, L. Mannila, and T. FÃďrnqvist. 2016. A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science and computing in K-12 education. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1--9. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757410Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. F. Heintz, L. Mannila, L. Nordén, P. Parnes, and B. Regnell. 2017. Introducing Programming and Digital Competence in Swedish K-9 Education. In Informatics in Schools: Focus on Learning Programming. 117--128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. F. Heintz, L. Mannila, K. Nygårds, P. Parnes, and B. Regnell. 2015. Computing at School in Sweden -- Experiences from Introducing Computer Science within Existing Subjects. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 118--130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. R. Hijón-Neira, L. Santacruz-Valencia, D. Pérez-Marín, and M. Gómez-Gómez. 2017. An analysis of the current situation of teaching programming in Primary Education. In 2017 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Hill, H. A. Dwyer, T. Martinez, D. Harlow, and D. Franklin. 2015. Floors and Flexibility: Designing a Programming Environment for 4th-6th Grade Classrooms. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 546--551.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. W. Hnin, M. Ichinco, and C. Kelleher. 2017. An exploratory study of the usage of different educational resources in an independent context. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 181--189.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. Hromkovič, T. Kohn, D. Komm, and G. Serafini. 2016. Combining the Power of Python with the Simplicity of Logo for a Sustainable Computer Science Education. In Informatics in Schools: Improvement of Informatics Knowledge and Perception. Springer International Publishing, 155--166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. J. Hromkovič, G. Serafini, and J. Staub. 2017. XLogoOnline: A Single-Page, Browser-Based Programming Environment for Schools Aiming at Reducing Cognitive Load on Pupils. In Informatics in Schools: Focus on Learning Programming. 219--231.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. M. Ichinco and C. Kelleher. 2015. Exploring novice programmer example use. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 63--71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. V. Isomöttönen, A.I. Lakanen, and V. Lappalainen. 2011. K-12 Game Programming Course Concept Using Textual Programming. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 459--464.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. K. Kahn and N. Winters. 2017. Child-Friendly Programming Interfaces to AI Cloud Services. In Data Driven Approaches in Digital Education. 566--570.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. E. Kaila, T. Rajala, M.-J. Laakso, and T. Salakoski. 2010. Effects of Course-long Use of a Program Visualization Tool. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education - Volume 103. 97--106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. J. S. Kay and J. G. Moss. 2012. Using robots to teach programming to K-12 teachers. In 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings. IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Mizue Kayama, Takao Futagami, Atsushi Konno, Takeharu Tasaki, and Cortland Starrett. 2010. Let's Go! Magical Spoons: A High School Learning Program for Information Coding Fundamentals. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 95--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Caitlin Kelleher and Randy Pausch. 2007. Using Storytelling to Motivate Programming. Commun. ACM 50, 7 (July 2007), 58--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Barbara Kitchenham, O Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering -- A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 51, 1 (2009), 7--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. S. Kocijancic and T. Kušar. 2008. Introducing programming languages through data acquisition examples. MIPRO 2008 - 31st International Convention Proceedings: Computers in Education 4 (2008), 258--261.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Eleni Konidari and Panos Louridas. 2010. When Students Are Not Programmers. ACM Inroads 1, 1 (March 2010), 55--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Maria Kordaki. 2010. A drawing and multi-representational computer environment for beginnersâĂŹ learning of programming using C: Design and pilot formative evaluation. Computers & Education 54, 1 (2010), 69 -- 87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. W. W.Y. Lau, G Ngai, Stephen C.F. Chan, and J. C.Y. Cheung. 2009. Learning Programming Through Fashion and Design: A Pilot Summer Course in Wearable Computing for Middle School Students. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 504--508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. J. Lin, Y. Lie, R. Ho, and C. Lie. 2007. Effects of guided collaboration on sixth graders' performance in logo programming. In 37th Annual Frontiers In Education Conference - Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports. 11--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Jiangjiang Liu, Ethan Philip Hasson, Zebulun David Barnett, and Peng Zhang. 2011. A survey on computer science K-12 outreach: Teacher training programs. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2011. IEEE, T4F--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2016. Learning to Program is Easy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 284--289. https://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2899432Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Linda Mannila. 2006. Progress Reports and Novices' Understanding of Program Code. In Proceedings of the 6th Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research: Koli Calling 2006 (Baltic Sea '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 27--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. L. Mannila. 2007. Novices' progress in introductory programming courses. Informatics in Education 6, 1 (2007), 139--152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Monica McGill and Adrienne Decker. 2017. Computer Science Education Repository. (2017). https://csedresearch.orgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Muhsin Menekse. 2015. Computer science teacher professional development in the United States: a review of studies published between 2004 and 2014. Computer Science Education 25, 4 (2015), 325--350.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. A. Merkouris, K. Chorianopoulos, and A. Kameas. 2017. Teaching Programming in Secondary Education Through Embodied Computing Platforms: Robotics and Wearables. Trans. Comput. Educ. 17, 2 (2017), 9:1--9:22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. N. Nikolova and E. Stefanova. 2014. Inquiry-Based Science Education in Secondary School Informatics --Challenges and Rewards. In Information Technology and Open Source: Applications for Education, Innovation, and Sustainability. 17--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. S. A. Nikou and A. A. Economides. 2014. Transition in student motivation during a Scratch and an App Inventor course. In 2014 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 1042--1045.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Yutaro Ohashi. 2017. Preparedness of Japan's Elementary School Teachers for the Introduction of Computer Programming Education. In Informatics in Schools: Focus on Learning Programming. Springer International Publishing, 129--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. C. B. Owen, L. Dillon, A. Dobbins, N. Keppers, M. Levinson, and M. Rhodes. 2016. Dancing Computer: Computer Literacy Though Dance. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multi Media. 174--180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. S. Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, N. Zaranis, and V. Orfanakis. 2016. Using Scratch and App Inventor for teaching introductory programming in secondary education. A case study. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 8, 3-4 (2016), 217--233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Seymour Papert. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. A. Pears, V. Dagienė, and E. Jasute. 2017. Baltic and Nordic K-12 Teacher Perspectives on Computational Thinking and Computing. In Informatics in Schools: Focus on Learning Programming. 141--152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. N. Pellas and E. Peroutseas. 2016. Gaming in Second Life via Scratch4SL: Engaging High School Students in Programming Courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research 54, 1 (2016), 108--143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. N. Pellas and E. Peroutseas. 2017. Leveraging Scratch4SL and Second Life to motivate high school students' participation in introductory programming courses: findings from a case study. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 23, 1 (2017), 51--79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Ljubomir Perković, Amber Settle, Sungsoon Hwang, and Joshua Jones. 2010. A framework for computational thinking across the curriculum. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, 123--127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Peter J Rich, Samuel F Browning, McKay Perkins, Timothy Shoop, Emily Yoshikawa, and Olga M Belikov. 2019. Coding in K-8: International Trends in Teaching Elementary/Primary Computing. TechTrends 63, 3 (2019), 311--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Anthony Robins, Janet Rountree, and Nathan Rountree. 2003. Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion. Computer Science Education 13, 2 (2003), 137--172. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. K.N. Rodhouse, B. Cooper, and S.E. Watkins. 2011. Programming for pre-college education using Squeak Smalltalk. Computers in Education Journal 21, 2 (2011), 101--111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. K. Roy. 2012. App Inventor for Android: Report from a Summer Camp. In Proceedings of the ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 283--288.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. A. Ruf, A. Mühling, and P. Hubwieser. 2014. Scratch vs. Karel: Impact on Learning Outcomes and Motivation. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. 50--59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. A. Sanzo, F. Schapachnik, P. Factorovich, and F. S. O'Connor. 2017. Pilas bloques: A scenario-based children learning platform. In 2017 Twelfth Latin American Conference on Learning Technologies (LACLO). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. T. Sapounidis and S. Demetriadis. 2013. Tangible Versus Graphical User Interfaces for Robot Programming: Exploring Cross-age Children's Preferences. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 17, 8 (2013), 1775--1786.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. T. Sapounidis, S. Demetriadis, and I. Stamelos. 2015. Evaluating Children Performance with Graphical and Tangible Robot Programming Tools. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 19, 1 (2015), 225--237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. C.D. Seals and L.O. Tripp. 2007. A study of science teachers utilizing visual programming techniques. IMSCI 2007 - International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics, Proceedings 2 (2007), 207--212. cited By 0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. S. Sentance and A. Csizmadia. 2016. Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher's perspective. Education and Information Technologies 22, 2 (2016), 469--495.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. G. Serafini. 2011. Teaching Programming at Primary Schools: Visions, Experiences, and Long-Term Research Prospects. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 143--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. F. Tort and B. Drot-Delange. 2013. Informatics in the French secondary curricula: Recent moves and perspectives. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives. 31--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Jiří Vaníček. 2015. Programming in Scratch Using Inquiry-Based Approach. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing, 82--93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Arto Vihavainen, Jonne Airaksinen, and Christopher Watson. 2014. A Systematic Review of Approaches for Teaching Introductory Programming and Their Influence on Success. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER '14). 19--26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Christopher Watson and Frederick W.B. Li. 2014. Failure Rates in Introductory Programming Revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '14). 39--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. M. Webb, N. Davis, T. Bell, Y. J. Katz, N. Reynolds, D. P. Chambers, and M. M. Sysło. 2016. Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 21st century: Why, what and when? Education and Information Technologies 22, 2 (2016), 445--468.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. D. Weintrop and U. Wilensky. 2015. To Block or Not to Block, That is the Question: Students' Perceptions of Blocks-based Programming. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 199--208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. D. Weintrop and U. Wilensky. 2015. Using Commutative Assessments to Compare Conceptual Understanding in Blocks-based and Text-based Programs. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research. 101--110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Jeanette Wing. 2011. Research notebook: Computational thinkingâĂŤWhat and why. The Link Magazine (2011), 20--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Jeannette M Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33--35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. C. Wu, I. Tseng, and S. Huang. 2008. Visualization of Program Behaviors: Physical Robots Versus Robot Simulators. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 53--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. D. Xu, A. Cadle, D. Thompson, U. Wolz, I. Greenberg, and D. Kumar. 2016. Creative Computation in High School. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. 273--278.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Fifteen Years of Introductory Programming in Schools: A Global Overview of K-12 Initiatives

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      Koli Calling '19: Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
      November 2019
      247 pages
      ISBN:9781450377157
      DOI:10.1145/3364510

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 November 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate80of182submissions,44%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader